One more warm — and ironic — round of rhetoric is being waged in the weeklong debate over whether certain persons at City Hall have provided sufficient data — and motivation — to Culver City voters regarding the April 8 election.
With the vapors still visible from his critical email to six City Hall officials on Monday night, Karlo Silbiger has stepped forward to elaborate on his message (See “Karlo Silbiger to City Hall: Where Is Election Data?” March 26). Mr. Silbiger wrote his email minutes after his father, the City Councilman Gary Silbiger, had engaged in a volatile discussion on the same subject. All of the elder Mr. Silbiger’s colleagues disagreed with his stand, which noticeably raised the mercury in Council Chambers.
As the campaign manager of City Council candidate Christopher Armenta, Karlo Silbiger has a direct stake in the outcome of the election.
“What I am saying now is completely separate from my role in Chris’s campaign,” Mr. Silbiger said.
Another Perspective
That probably is a good thing. Mr. Armenta, in a separate interview, expressed the opposite opinion. The candidate, who has served as the City Clerk for the past six years, said emphatically yesterday that the fundamental election data his office posted weeks ago fulfills the responsibilities of his office.
“The legally required information has been up quite awhile,” Mr. Armenta said.
“At the City Clerk’s office, we always put up the legally required information, which typically includes the sample ballot information, that currently is online, and the polling locater, which currently is online.”
On the Other Hand
Karlo Silbiger, on the contrary, is convinced that City Hall has failed to provide sufficient information/encouragement to stimulate the estimated 6,000 residents expected to determine the three Council winners and the six losers. He would like to see City Hall take a more aggressive promotional stance.
Both Mr. Silbiger and Mr. Armenta pointed out that ever since announcing his candidacy last June, the candidate has taken unmistakable steps to distance himself from the day-to-day, election-sensitive duties of his office, right down to counting the ballots on Election Night.
Each party was equally clear about his convictions, on opposite sides of the fence.
Shlepping banners, flyers and other traditional promotional materials is “beyond the control of the City Clerk’s office,” Mr. Armenta said.
There seems to be a perceived thin, if not confusing, line between city government simply informing voters and giving them a loving shove toward the voting booth.
The CEO Responds
Finally, City Manager Jerry Fulwood, as chief executive of Culver City, was the prime target of Mr. Silbiger’s email that rebuked city leaders for supposedly falling well short of supplying a desirable level of information.
“Normally, I do not become involved in electoral issues,” Mr. Fulwood told the newspaper. “I read Karlo’s email when I came in Tuesday morning, but nothing has changed for us.
“The election is the responsibility of the City Clerk’s office. I cannot get involved until after the election.”
To explain Mr. Fulwood’s hands-off posture, owing to changes in the revised City Charter that were authorized two years ago by Culver City voters, lines of authority and responsibility throughout City Hall will change after April 8. But many changes have not yet been publicly delineated.
For the remaining 12 days of this election season, the status is likely to remain quo.
Two issues are on the municipal ballot: A nine-way race for three open seats on the City Council and a renewal of the Utility User’s Tax, known to its many friends and few enemies this election cycle as Measure W.
